|
The author spends quite a bit of time comparing the expenses, but never really mentions the pay. It's a better deal if the pay stays the same. This kind of comparison happens a lot, but I personally think it's a little faulty. To demonstrate, let's do some math. If I make 60K after taxes in Phoenix and spend 18K/year on rent (1.5K * 12), and let's say another 12K on food and gas and miscellaneous expenses, then I have spent 30K and have 30K remaining. That's 50% of my income goes to expenses. If I live in San Francisco and make 120K/year after taxes, and I spend 50% of my income on rent and food like I did in Phoenix, then I've both made 2x the Phoenix salary and I've spent 2x the Phoenix expenses. But what's left? Instead of 30K in savings, I have 60K in savings. By living in SF, I've saved an additional 30K over what I would have saved in Phoenix. Now, I'm using nice round numbers here to make a point, but even if SF expenses were 2.5 or even 3x Phoenix expenses, I'd still come out ahead. Sure, the psychological impact of paying less feels good, but unless you can keep your pay closer to SF pay while living in Phoenix, you're probably not going to come out ahead financially. My two cents. |